The Killer Angels.

Michael Shaara only wrote four novels during his life, one of which, the baseball book For the Love of the Game, was published posthumously and turned into a critically panned movie, but his magnum opus was the Civil War novel The Killer Angels, for which he won the 1975 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction. That book, which takes its title from one general’s father’s reaction to a line in Hamlet, served as the basis for the four-hour epic film Gettysburg, and Joss Whedon has said it inspired him to create the series Firefly.

The book retells the Battle of Gettysburg in substantial detail, using memoirs and letters from the generals involved where possible, narrating from the perspective of five of those generals and showing the discord on the Confederate side on how to attack the Union’s positions. General James Longstreet wrote an extensive memoir after the Civil War and we get much of his view on the South’s ill-fated decision to hold Gettysburg rather than retreating to more favorable ground; instead, Robert E. Lee, who is depicted here as in failing health and of a distracted, stubborn mind, chose to attack Union positions on two hills south of the town that provided the blue troops with a decided defensive advantage. (Longstreet was roundly criticized for decades afterwards for these failures and his request to delay the assault until an additional brigade arrived for support.) The main voice for the Union, Joshua Lawrence Chamberain (called Lawrence by his brother, Tom, throughout the book), led the defense of one of those hills, Little Round Top, and became one of the war’s primary heroes after the battle, commanding the Union troops at the surrender ceremony at Appamattox and later serving four years as Governor of Maine.

The Killer Angels is a war novel through and through, which means there’s very little else in it – including no female characters at all, but also little dialogue or even thoughts beyond the exigencies of the next battle. If you’re interested in military tactics, there’s likely quite a bit in here for you to enjoy and digest, especially with Longstreet’s recollections of the battle informing so much of the text. If you like character development or any plot threads at all beyond the war itself, this isn’t the book for you – or me, as it turned out, because despite strong prose and a quick pace through the action, The Killer Angels struck me as rather dry and, no pun intended, an antiseptic look at a pivotal moment in U.S. history. They came, they fought, some of them died, and those losses – nearly 8000 soldiers from both sides were killed, with around 50,000 total casualties – seem horribly pointless through the narrow lens of the book, which gives no broader context to the battle. (Not that the broader context makes the deaths any less lamentable.) The generals in Washington who were directing the overall war effort are only present on these pages as the idiots the leaders on the ground criticize for their dimwitted direction, while families are off-page distractions mentioned only in passing. There’s none of the substance I’d expect to see in a work of literature, because Shaara chose to make the novel all about the battle itself. That may suffice for many readers, and it does qualify the work for the Pulitzer criterion that the winner “preferably (deal) with American life,” but it’s not my personal preference for higher-end reading.

Next up: Another Pulitzer Prize for Fiction winner, A.B. Guthrie’s The Way West, which won in 1950.

Comments

  1. I was assigned The Killer Angels while a midshipman at the US Naval Academy taking a course on Civil War and Reconstruction. We had the guidance and experience of a professional historian to put the work into the context of both the larger war and the eventual debates over whose failures decided the outcome. What I see now, having read your review and learned more about the materials that Shaara drew from, is that the novel would be a useful example of how history is written and rewritten, perhaps in a historiography course. Longstreet wrote his memoirs in a context (defending his choices) and that leads Shaara to do the same–it’s a mid-Vietnam era defense of being overruled by the establishment and leaders in faraway offices who do not understand the realities of the battlefield nearly so well as those present in it.

  2. @ Jay: The book is, in fact, the classic example for the writing and rewriting of history, as regards the Civil War. I have used it in my Civil War courses several times for that purpose, as has my mentor.

    @ Jay and Keith: In case it holds your interest, the book fits fairly squarely into the interpretative tradition that historians call the “Reconciliationist” tradition. In short, in the 1890s, a generation of Americans that had NOT fought in the war began searching for an understanding of the war that honored the heroic sacrifices of the soldiers while not bringing up any of those nasty old political issues like slavery. Ergo, we get battles and heroism and sacrifice, but absolutely no larger context.

    The other traditions are the Lost Cause (“those heroic Southerners, led by their godlike General Lee, were just fighting for states’ rights, and didn’t really care about slavery”), the Union Cause (“the war was a war to save democracy”), and the Emancipationist Cause (“the war was a war to end slavery.”) As you can imagine, the Emancipationist cause was and is the dominant interpretation amongst African Americans, but it was drowned out by the other schools of thought (particularly Reconciliationist and Lost Cause) in the late 19th century, only to resurface in a serious way in the 1960s (due to the CR movement) and the 1980s (due to “Glory”).

  3. Andrew Beaton

    The criticism of Longstreet you mention, particularly as pertains to the action on July 3, was highly political in nature and not of serious military substance. Criticism of Lee’s subordinates has some merit if you’re talking about Ewell’s failure to take the Union right on July 1 or Stuart’s disappearing act prior to the battle. But ultimately Lee has to own the completely disastrous decision to attack the Union center on July 3. Lost Cause partisans can’t bring themselves to blame Lee for anything, hence the decades of attacks on Longstreet.